Constitutional interpretation

[bomberfox]

Judging by this response you're either unfamiliar or ignoring the concept of a GDP, since you failed to address it completely and opted for analyzing all the trees and ignored the forest.

Economics is my major. I know what GDP is. Current GDP is different than full employment GDP.

 

[Paul191145]

Judging by this response you're either unfamiliar or ignoring the concept of a GDP, since you failed to address it completely and opted for analyzing all the trees and ignored the for

Economics is my major. I know what GDP is. Current GDP is different than full employment GDP.

I see, so you're focusing on the theoretical and ignoring reality, good to know.

 

[NotreDame]

if you're aiming for CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you might consider those enumerations relevant,

My goodness man, you repeatedly espouse poor reasoning with frequent use of ad hominem arguments Strawman arguments. For instance:

according to you the primary author and the rest of the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of idiots

The above has never been a part of any argument I have ever made in this thread.

Time and time again you resort to bad arguments and I suspect it’s because you cannot articulate a reasoned reply.

So spare me your nonsense, Strawman argument. Better to not reply when you cannot conjure a rational reply then post an irrational reply of Strawman.

the primary author and the rest of the framers of the Constitution[…simply didn't understand the "plain text" of the words they were using

Nope. Another Strawman.

I specifically stated in a prior post Madison perhaps wanted to say X but mistakenly used words and arrangement of the words that said Y rather than X. Which means what he wrote isn’t what he intended the words to say. This is a common error with lawmaking.

Yet, what he intended or desired to say isn’t the law. What is law in the U.S. is what is written and not what was never written into law, such as what was intended. Too bad, where what was intended doesn’t make it into the written law, then what was intended isn’t law.

I also told you previously, this isn’t the only occasion Madison envisioned a different meaning, as the wording regarding the electoral college vested to the states broad powers to enact all or nothing electors, although Madison said this was not what was envisioned. Too bad, what the text says is law, if what he envisioned isn’t in the law, then it isn’t law.

Next, I do think Madison and others understood the plain text meaning, and realized the plain text had an unintended meaning.

The fact Madison, Jefferson, and others didn’t attempt to argue plain text meaning by looking at the meaning of the words used but instead, like you, sought to side step the plain text meaning, ignore the meaning of the words, and argue instead the structure of the constitution of limited government means the G and W cannot be a grant of power.

Yet, the structure of the constitution doesn’t define the words used. The meaning of the words had their own meaning, derived from everyday common usage as reflected in various sources.

Another flaw of your argument is you commit what is known as a genetic fallacy. Your view, and that of Madison, must be correct because of who they are, the Framers.

But logically that cannot be correct because status of the person doesn’t demonstrate their view, belief, opinion is correct.

As I said previously, Madison isn’t correct because he’s Madison. Madison is not incorrect because he is or isn’t Madison. Madison is wrong or correct based on the facts, and the fact(s) is the plain text, the words used, their meaning, a meaning neither you or Madison are entitled to change or alter, a power reserved for fantasy of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’ The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things–that’s all.’”

Madison and you are incorrect because the plain text meaning is law and there’s no rational reason to ignore plain text meaning.

Looks like I'm the Constitutional originalist and YOU are the "living Constitution progressive", but I don't expect you to accept that.

No, you’re a Living Constitutionalist like Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, etcetera, as you ignore plain text meaning just like them.

Originalism has, as its tenet, adherence to plain text meaning. Indeed, perhaps the most famed and renown Originalist, Justice Scalia, said plain text meaning was paramount. The Original meaning is sought only where the plain text meaning doesn’t offer an answer but here the plain text meaning does provide the answer. See, “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.”

Second, Originalism is consistent with plain text meaning, which means where the original meaning is contradictory to the plain text meaning, as you infer here by your reasoning, then you haven’t adhered to one or the other or both.

Third, original meaning looks to how the meaning of the words were reasonably understood by the public, AKA reasonable public meaning. There’s no meaning here for your view or Madison, so your are invoking original meaning in name only.

instead of ascribing unlimited powers to government from a mere two words.

The G and W doesn’t have “unlimited powers,” as I showed by argument in a prior post.

 

[Paul191145]

"I do think Madison and others understood the plain text meaning, and realized the plain text had an unintended meaning." Yeah, another way of stating they didn't understand the words they were using.

Obviously you simply refuse to recognize how ridiculous your whole "plain text" meaning is in light of the definitions of the words from that era I've already provided. As for "original meaning", the debate in legal circles is more of an "original intent vs. stare decisis". https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr

Sorry for hurting your sensitive feelings, but what you take as "ad hominem" is by no means intended as such, maybe my military career and too many years in combat desensitized me too much.

 

[NotreDame]

Sorry for hurting your sensitive feelings, but what you take as "ad hominem" is by no means intended as such, maybe my military career and too many years in combat desensitized me too much.

Ah, that’s cute, flatter yourself by thinking you’ve “hurt” my “sensitive feelings.” Hey, whatever ya gotta do to float your boat of virility, even if it is fictional.

The fact is, you’ve resorted to ad hominems inntid thread numerous times. At best “too many years in combat desensitized” you to avoiding formal logical fallacies, such as ad hominems.

"I do think Madison and others understood the plain text meaning, and realized the plain text had an unintended meaning." Yeah, another way of stating they didn't understand the words they were using.

Thank you again for another strawman. Tell me, do you really labor under erroneous notion of misconstruing another’s argument is sound logic?

It is logically imppossible to have “understood the plain text meaning, and realized the plain text had an unintended meaning” and “they didn't understand the words they were using.”

So, which is false? Well, your nonsense latter statement, which is a Strawman, is false and contradictory to my statement they understood.

The best retort by you persistently in this thread is to personally attack people or resort to Strawman arguments, while ironically self-avowing to be an “Objectivist.”

Obviously you simply refuse to recognize how ridiculous your whole "plain text" meaning is in light of the definitions of the words from that era I've already provided.

What is “obvious” is demonstrated by facts and reasoning. Having to self declare what is obvious is a potential ominous sign of baloney.

And I addressed your definitions, in depth, in a prior post. The “ridiculous” aspect is the definitions you submitted are consistent with my view, not your own.

Let’s re-read my post: 186: “And the issue you’ve ignored isn’t with the phrase but your meaning of the word “General and common” to mean “all” and “equally.” The author at the site doesn’t agree with your “all” and “equally” definitions of “general welfare and common” as the author included meanings of something less than “all” and having nothing to do with “equally.”

From the link: “ GEN’ERAL: Public; common; relating to or comprehending the whole community; as the general interest or safety of a nation.

WELFARE: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.”

Hmm…what do ya know, those meanings are consistent with what I’ve said in post after post. They might not be consistent with your repeated Strawman arguments of my view.

Now, pray tell how those meanings are inconsistent with my plain text reading.

As for "original meaning", the debate in legal circles is more of an "original intent vs. stare decisis". https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr

I am in the “legal circles.” “Original intent” was the 1980s and died with the ascendcy of Scalia and others who rebuked original intent and articulated original meaning.

And you should try reading what you linked to because the opening line is to original meaning by Scalia and not the junk you favor of “original intent.”

“Justice Scalia was the public face of modern originalism. Originalism maintains both that constitutional text means what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative.”

No “original intent” but the “public meaning,” a phrase I’ve used in prior posts. See, when you seek to school a lawyer odds are you are in fact going to get schooled.

So, as I said before, the plain text and original meaning do not support your view/Madison’s view. You and the liberals and left wingers share a common denominator, ignore and abandon the plain text for your pet interpretation.

 

[Paul191145]

Ah, that’s cute, flatter yourself by thinking you’ve “hurt” my “sensitive feelings.” Hey, whatever ya gotta do to float your boat of virility, even if it is fictional.

The fact is, you’ve resorted to ad hominems inntid thread numerous times. At best “too many years in combat desensitized” you to avoiding formal logical fallacies, such as ad hominems.



Thank you again for another strawman. Tell me, do you really labor under erroneous notion of misconstruing another’s argument is sound logic?

It is logically imppossible to have “understood the plain text meaning, and realized the plain text had an unintended meaning” and “they didn't understand the words they were using.”

So, which is false? Well, your nonsense latter statement, which is a Strawman, is false and contradictory to my statement they understood.

The best retort by you persistently in this thread is to personally attack people or resort to Strawman arguments, while ironically self-avowing to be an “Objectivist.”



What is “obvious” is demonstrated by facts and reasoning. Having to self declare what is obvious is a potential ominous sign of baloney.

And I addressed your definitions, in depth, in a prior post. The “ridiculous” aspect is the definitions you submitted are consistent with my view, not your own.

Let’s re-read my post: 186: “And the issue you’ve ignored isn’t with the phrase but your meaning of the word “General and common” to mean “all” and “equally.” The author at the site doesn’t agree with your “all” and “equally” definitions of “general welfare and common” as the author included meanings of something less than “all” and having nothing to do with “equally.”

From the link: “ GEN’ERAL: Public; common; relating to or comprehending the whole community; as the general interest or safety of a nation.

WELFARE: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.”

Hmm…what do ya know, those meanings are consistent with what I’ve said in post after post. They might not be consistent with your repeated Strawman arguments of my view.

Now, pray tell how those meanings are inconsistent with my plain text reading.



I am in the “legal circles.” “Original intent” was the 1980s and died with the ascendcy of Scalia and others who rebuked original intent and articulated original meaning.

And you should try reading what you linked to because the opening line is to original meaning by Scalia and not the junk you favor of “original intent.”

“Justice Scalia was the public face of modern originalism. Originalism maintains both that constitutional text means what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative.”

No “original intent” but the “public meaning,” a phrase I’ve used in prior posts. See, when you seek to school a lawyer odds are you are in fact going to get schooled.

So, as I said before, the plain text and original meaning do not support your view/Madison’s view. You and the liberals and left wingers share a common denominator, ignore and abandon the plain text for your pet interpretation.

Up to you hero, if the original meaning or intent is irrelevant, then it will continue being misinterpreted until some as yet undefined form of Collectivism is achieved. Congratulations, you're part of the problem.

 

[Paul191145]

Ah, that’s cute, flatter yourself by thinking you’ve “hurt” my “sensitive feelings.” Hey, whatever ya gotta do to float your boat of virility, even if it is fictional.

The fact is, you’ve resorted to ad hominems inntid thread numerous times. At best “too many years in combat desensitized” you to avoiding formal logical fallacies, such as ad hominems.



Thank you again for another strawman. Tell me, do you really labor under erroneous notion of misconstruing another’s argument is sound logic?

It is logically imppossible to have “understood the plain text meaning, and realized the plain text had an unintended meaning” and “they didn't understand the words they were using.”

So, which is false? Well, your nonsense latter statement, which is a Strawman, is false and contradictory to my statement they understood.

The best retort by you persistently in this thread is to personally attack people or resort to Strawman arguments, while ironically self-avowing to be an “Objectivist.”



What is “obvious” is demonstrated by facts and reasoning. Having to self declare what is obvious is a potential ominous sign of baloney.

And I addressed your definitions, in depth, in a prior post. The “ridiculous” aspect is the definitions you submitted are consistent with my view, not your own.

Let’s re-read my post: 186: “And the issue you’ve ignored isn’t with the phrase but your meaning of the word “General and common” to mean “all” and “equally.” The author at the site doesn’t agree with your “all” and “equally” definitions of “general welfare and common” as the author included meanings of something less than “all” and having nothing to do with “equally.”

From the link: “ GEN’ERAL: Public; common; relating to or comprehending the whole community; as the general interest or safety of a nation.

WELFARE: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.”

Hmm…what do ya know, those meanings are consistent with what I’ve said in post after post. They might not be consistent with your repeated Strawman arguments of my view.

Now, pray tell how those meanings are inconsistent with my plain text reading.



I am in the “legal circles.” “Original intent” was the 1980s and died with the ascendcy of Scalia and others who rebuked original intent and articulated original meaning.

And you should try reading what you linked to because the opening line is to original meaning by Scalia and not the junk you favor of “original intent.”

“Justice Scalia was the public face of modern originalism. Originalism maintains both that constitutional text means what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative.”

No “original intent” but the “public meaning,” a phrase I’ve used in prior posts. See, when you seek to school a lawyer odds are you are in fact going to get schooled.

So, as I said before, the plain text and original meaning do not support your view/Madison’s view. You and the liberals and left wingers share a common denominator, ignore and abandon the plain text for your pet interpretation.

BTW, just so you know, I advocate for laissez-faire, hardly "left wing" or "liberal", but as expected you're only used to the "us v. them" kind of discussion/debate et al, and refuse to think for yourself like the rest of the two party drones.

 

[American]

Well, let's start where this all began: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

"The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution."

Marbury v. Madison (1803) | National Archives

www.archives.gov

More clearly:

"The holding of Marbury v. Madison established the United States Supreme Court’s power to determine whether a law passed by Congress was constitutional (Judicial Review). Prior to this case, it was clear that laws conflicting with the Constitution were invalid, but the branch of government who determined validity had not been established."

Marbury v. Madison - Case Summary and Case Brief

Following is the case brief for Marbury v. Madison, United States Supreme Court, (1803) Case Summary of Marbury v. Madison Madison failed to finalize the former president’s appointment of William Marbury as Justice of the Peace. Marbury directly petitioned the Supreme Court for an equitable...

legaldictionary.net

So, the above established the power of SCOTUS to essentially rule on what is within the power of the Federal Government under the national Constitution.

But the SCOTUS' first ruling establishing an interpretation of the "general welfare clause" occurred in 1936 with United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

"SCOTUS held that the U.S Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

This was followed by Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), a decision that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

Notice these decisions were rendered under President Franklyn Roosevelt's Administration, during the period of his New Deal efforts.

Roosevelt was known to "bully" the SCOTUS with threats of "stacking the Court" in order to get his New Deal program supported.

However, what demonstrates to me the straining of this ideology by FDR SCOTUS is that the Constitution says shall PROMOTE the General Welfare, while PROVIDING for the Common Defense. There's the difference right there. Promoting isn't providing. The Federal government shouldn't be more than a cheerleader or at most promoting the general welfare under the enumerated powers it was assigned.

 

[Blue Dog]

One of the issues in play was the original design. The framers wanted the Senate chosen by the state governments and the HoR elected by the people. Why?

To provide an internal check within Congress. If the national government was going to grow, the state governments thru the Senate were going to determine how much.

After the 17th amend was passed, that check was removed contributing to national government growing in size.

 

[NotreDame]

Up to you hero, if the original meaning or intent is irrelevant, then it will continue being misinterpreted until some as yet undefined form of Collectivism is achieved. Congratulations, you're part of the problem.

And yet again, the illogical ad hominem, as if using them ad nauseum gives the presentation of educated, intelligent, informed. Rather, your use and your repeated use of ad hominems establishes while giving the appearance you nothing rational to contribute.

if the original meaning or intent is irrelevant

Fortunately I’ve never said original meaning is irrelevant. In fact, I’ve invoked the phrase, stated original meaning doesn’t support your or Madison’s view and in part why.

Rather, you obsessed over original intent, which is a vacuous interpretative approach.

Then you linked to an article stating the article was discussing, inter alia, “original intent,” demonstrating you never read the few opening lines of the article that tell the reader the argument concerns, inter alia, “original meaning” and not “original intent.”

Given the ponderous logic of your arguments, links to cites not supportive of what you’ve written or argued, you are your own sarcastic “hero.”

The problem is your poor logic, bad argument, as illuminated time and time again, leaving you with nothing but as hominems and allegations I’m part of the problem.

The “problem” is your argument is incoherent, doesn’t make sense, links to cites not supportive of what you’ve said. “Congratulations” not only do you make poor arguments you cannot perceive it and blame others.

 

[NotreDame]

BTW, just so you know, I advocate for laissez-faire, hardly "left wing" or "liberal", but as expected you're only used to the "us v. them" kind of discussion/debate et al, and refuse to think for yourself like the rest of the two party drones.

I didn’t say you were left wing! This is part of the problem, you can’t follow what is written or the logic of an argument.

So, not only “as expected” did you miss the plain English of what I wrote, as I didn’t write/imply you are left wing or liberal, but factually you missed the plain English of what I wrote.”

“You and the liberals and left wingers share a common denominator, ignore and abandon the plain text for your pet interpretation.”

Can you read that properly? Do you see the phrase “share a common denominator”? Do you? Do you not know that to say “share a common denominator” with someone or something isn’t to allege you are that thing that you share a common deonominator? The phrase “share a common denominator” is expressly used to retain the distinctions of the entities while highlighting they have one thing in common.

Yet, this botching of plain English is your modus operandi.

After all, you cite to an article stating the article is discussing “original intent” when the argument clearly states it is discussing “original meaning.”

You couldn’t even recognize you wrote “original intent” and had original intent in mind but the very article you cited to says something different of “original meaning.” You are so blinded and singularly obsessed with original intent that you couldn’t be bothered to read and know the article is concerning, inter ali, “original meaning.”

refuse to think for yourself like the rest of the two party drones.

Garbage. Your post above and your many other posts shows who can’t “think for yourself.”

Rather, you believe in X and as a result you will strain logic to read or see anything as supportive of your belief, ignore plain English because I’d your belief, and use brutally tortured logic because of your belief. That isn’t to “think for yourself.”

 

[bomberfox]

I see, so you're focusing on the theoretical and ignoring reality, good to know.

It isnt theoretical. We analyze this on a daily basis. Plus theory =\= hypothesis. There is no “its just a theory”

 

[bomberfox]

Up to you hero, if the original meaning or intent is irrelevant, then it will continue being misinterpreted until some as yet undefined form of Collectivism is achieved. Congratulations, you're part of the problem.

Every society is a form of collectivism to some degree. Atomization within a social species literally kills.

 

[Paul191145]

I didn’t say you were left wing! This is part of the problem, you can’t follow what is written or the logic of an argument.

So, not only “as expected” did you miss the plain English of what I wrote, as I didn’t write/imply you are left wing or liberal, but factually you missed the plain English of what I wrote.”

“You and the liberals and left wingers share a common denominator, ignore and abandon the plain text for your pet interpretation.”

Can you read that properly? Do you see the phrase “share a common denominator”? Do you? Do you not know that to say “share a common denominator” with someone or something isn’t to allege you are that thing that you share a common deonominator? The phrase “share a common denominator” is expressly used to retain the distinctions of the entities while highlighting they have one thing in common.

Yet, this botching of plain English is your modus operandi.

After all, you cite to an article stating the article is discussing “original intent” when the argument clearly states it is discussing “original meaning.”

You couldn’t even recognize you wrote “original intent” and had original intent in mind but the very article you cited to says something different of “original meaning.” You are so blinded and singularly obsessed with original intent that you couldn’t be bothered to read and know the article is concerning, inter ali, “original meaning.”



Garbage. Your post above and your many other posts shows who can’t “think for yourself.”

Rather, you believe in X and as a result you will strain logic to read or see anything as supportive of your belief, ignore plain English because I’d your belief, and use brutally tortured logic because of your belief. That isn’t to “think for yourself.”

Wow, you really are wound up tight aren't you. The fact remains if you essentially abandon original meaning or intent the entire document can be declare null and void. There is also the fact that the original interpretation that did not give the fed gov almost unlimited power lasted 100 years after Madison's death, which I've already pointed out and you ignored apparently. Now go back into your word salad and try to grasp those very simple concepts.

 

[Paul191145]

It isnt theoretical. We analyze this on a daily basis. Plus theory =\= hypothesis. There is no “its just a theory”

You seem to be a fan of Collectivism of some kind, where as I've seen it's failure up close and personal. BTW, your "full employment GDP" is theoretical, and has no basis in fact outside anything despotic.

 

[Paul191145]

Every society is a form of collectivism to some degree. Atomization within a social species literally kills.

So you are of the mind that individual liberty is societal poison somehow, that's just pathetic.

 

[bomberfox]

You seem to be a fan of Collectivism of some kind, where as I've seen it's failure up close and personal. BTW, your "full employment GDP" is theoretical, and has no basis in fact outside anything despotic.

EVERY EVERY society that has ever existed has had some form of collectivism.

 

[Paul191145]

EVERY EVERY society that has ever existed has had some form of collectivism.

Yes, and the U.S. was the first to try and get away from such things due to feudalistic problems and a lack of individual liberty. Although the fed gov never truly accepted the concept and started violating the concept almost immediately, we still prospered more than any nation in history due to the lack of Collectivism, until about 100 years ago, when we started our journey down the path to more and more Collectivist problems.

 

[bomberfox]

Yes, and the U.S. was the first to try and get away from such things due to feudalistic problems and a lack of individual liberty. Although the fed gov never truly accepted the concept and started violating the concept almost immediately, we still prospered more than any nation in history due to the lack of Collectivism, until about 100 years ago, when we started our journey down the path to more and more Collectivist problems.

The US has always had some sort of collective action. Warfare requires collective action.

Ayn Rand’s ideology is childish.

 

[Paul191145]

The US has always had some sort of collective action. Warfare requires collective action.

Ayn Rand’s ideology is childish.

I'm retired military, and have no doubt I know a lot more about warfare than you, it's an all volunteer force and has been for decades, that's not Collectivist. You state that Ayn Rand's ideology is childish, apparently you're unaware she survived the Communist Revolution in Russia and escaped afterwards. BTW, I was a young U.S. Army Sgt. in West Germany when the Iron Curtain dropped in late 1989, and personally dealt with many of those who immediately fled the Soviet states, and I've seen the failure of Collectivism in various other places as well.

 

[bomberfox]

I'm retired military, and have no doubt I know a lot more about warfare than you, it's an all volunteer force and has been for decades, that's not Collectivist. You state that Ayn Rand's ideology is childish, apparently you're unaware she survived the Communist Revolution in Russia and escaped afterwards. BTW, I was a young U.S. Army Sgt. in West Germany when the Iron Curtain dropped in late 1989, and personally dealt with many of those who immediately fled the Soviet states, and I've seen the failure of Collectivism in various other places as well.

She ran away and filled her mind with drugs. We are done.

 

[Paul191145]

She ran away and filled her mind with drugs. We are done.

LOLOLOLOLOL, ignorance personified.

 

[NotreDame]

Wow, you really are wound up tight aren't you. The fact remains if you essentially abandon original meaning or intent the entire document can be declare null and void. There is also the fact that the original interpretation that did not give the fed gov almost unlimited power lasted 100 years after Madison's death, which I've already pointed out and you ignored apparently. Now go back into your word salad and try to grasp those very simple concepts.

Wow, you really are wound up tight aren't you.

“Wow you really” have an infatuation for me personally as, time and time again, you discuss me. Gladly, it isn’t reciprocal.

Again, you can’t make a logical argument so you deflect, and focus upon me personally. The kind of personal attention I’d rather not have from you. Yes, it’s creepy as you in post after post have to comment about me personally.

The fact remains if you essentially abandon original meaning

“The fact remains” I’ve never abandoned original meaning and between the two of us, I was using original meaning whereas you kept referring to the intellectually bankrupt “original intent.”

“The fact remains” original meaning does not support your or Madison’s view.

You’ve abdoned original meaning. Original meaning begins with plain text meaning and only with ambiguity with plain text meaning is original meaning invoked. The plain text isn’t ambiguous in regards to our issue. Next, original meaning doesn’t support your view or Madison’s.

Both you and Madison ignore the plain text. Madison never argued anything close to “original meaning” in regards to the G and W clause. He did not argue plain text either, perhaps in part because he couldn’t.

Hence, he essentially argued the plain meaning cannot mean what it does for an assortment of reasoned unrelated to the plain text.

hat did not give the fed gov almost unlimited power lasted 100 years after Madison's death, which I've already pointed out and you ignored apparently.

Wrong again. This facile logic was addressed by me.
Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076289611

“So what? Longevity of an interpretation doesn’t establish the interpretation is correct. Longevity doesn’t show what a text says.

Hamilton’s contrary view was adopted by the Federalists, inherited by some members of the Whig Party, invoked by Henry Clay to justify a speding bill for canals and roads and Congress passed. Monroe, originally a proponent of the Madisonnian view, later shifted to Hamilton’s view to justify signing into law legislation for internal improvements, and Lincoln similarly held this view as he advocated for spending to allocate subsidies to the railroad system. Hamilton’s view survived and persisted with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Joseph Stories famed “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” published in 1833, discussed the G and W clause, arguments, inter alia, and concluded Hamilton’s view was the correct view.

So, Hamilton’s view persisted, for whatever that is worth.” Emphasis mine.

I’ll take my logical “word salad” over your Trumpian notion of alternative facts and reality, failure to read and understand plain English, ad hominems, Strawmen, citing to links and articles unsupportive of your view.

 

[Paul191145]

“The fact remains” I’ve never abandoned original meaning and between the two of us, I was using original meaning whereas you kept referring to the intellectually bankrupt “original intent.”

“The fact remains” original meaning does not support your or Madison’s view.

Hence, he essentially argued the plain meaning cannot mean what it does for an assortment of reasoned unrelated to the plain text.



Wrong again. This facile logic was addressed by me.
Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076289611

“So what? Longevity of an interpretation doesn’t establish the interpretation is correct. Longevity doesn’t show what a text says.

Hamilton’s contrary view was adopted by the Federalists, inherited by some members of the Whig Party, invoked by Henry Clay to justify a speding bill for canals and roads and Congress passed. Monroe, originally a proponent of the Madisonnian view, later shifted to Hamilton’s view to justify signing into law legislation for internal improvements, and Lincoln similarly held this view as he advocated for spending to allocate subsidies to the railroad system. Hamilton’s view survived and persisted with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Joseph Stories famed “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” published in 1833, discussed the G and W clause, arguments, inter alia, and concluded Hamilton’s view was the correct view.

So, Hamilton’s view persisted, for whatever that is worth.” Emphasis mine.

I’ll take my logical “word salad” over your Trumpian notion of alternative facts and reality, failure to read and understand plain English, ad hominems, Strawmen, citing to links and articles unsupportive of your view.

These two quotes from you are at odds with each other, if you support original meaning or intent, yet reject it and state that just because it was valid for many years is a contradiction, whether you choose to accept that or not. I'll give you this though, you do stick to your guns and love to call things "Strawman" simply because you refuse to open your mind. I guess Joseph Stories was more involved with the construct of the Constitution than the Framers, in your world.

 

[NotreDame]

These two quotes from you are at odds with each other, if you support original meaning or intent, yet reject it and state that just because it was valid for many years is a contradiction, whether you choose to accept that or not. I'll give you this though, you do stick to your guns and love to call things "Strawman" simply because you refuse to open your mind. I guess Joseph Stories was more involved with the construct of the Constitution than the Framers, in your world.

And you are wrong again.

These two quotes from you are at odds with each other, if you support original meaning or intent, yet reject it

I’ve never rejected original meaning. I’ve rejected the trash of original intent. Original meaning and original intent are the same. Hence, there’s no “at odds” with rejecting original intent and accepting original meaning.

Indeed, the original meaning crowd, J Scalia among them, rejected original intent and espoused original meaning.

So, no, I’ve rejected nothing more than “original intent.” I accept original meaning.

and state that just because it was valid for many years is a contradiction, whether you choose to accept that or not. I'll give you this though, you do stick to your guns and love to call things "Strawman" simply because you refuse to open your mind. I guess Joseph Stories was more involved with the construct of the Constitution than the Framers, in your world.

Vacuous. Another post that doesn’t address the substance of my argument. Another post factually and historically wrong as your other revisionist history, because you have made many Strawmen.

is a contradiction,

I’ve not many any contradiction. Where in my argument is there a contradiction? It doesn’t exist, and this is another failure on your behalf to read and understand the plain English and failure to properly following the logic of the argument, as you did by Strawmanning that I said you were left wing or liberal.

There’s no contradiction, and you are welcome to attempt to show one.